How to Identify the Poster of Defamatory Articles on 'note

The media platform “note”, operated by note Inc., serves as a service where one can easily share their own experiences and know-how. On “note”, you can post “text”, “images”, “videos”, “audio”, and “tweets”, and aim for monetization through paid content sales, paid magazine publication, and a “tipping” feature to support creators.

Therefore, in an attempt to differentiate and increase income, there have been many cases where individuals slander others or infringe on privacy. Since many posts on note are anonymous, this article will explain how to identify malicious posters on note.

Note and Sender Information Disclosure Requests

Infringements of rights on Note, such as repeated instances of unauthorized serialization of manga, are common. Furthermore, it is also common for works published on Note to be sequentially reposted on other websites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Pixiv. Therefore, even if the infringing articles are deleted, it is difficult to completely stop the damage.

Moreover, even if an article is deleted, there are many malicious cases where the same content is continuously posted elsewhere. In such cases, deleting individual articles becomes a game of whack-a-mole, and does not contribute to the victim’s damage recovery.

Generally, those who defame others or infringe on privacy rights or portrait rights through illegal posts on the internet are liable for damages based on tort under the Japanese Civil Code. The victim can claim damages against the offender. Depending on the content, a criminal offense may also be established, in which case the offender will also bear criminal responsibility.

However, on platforms like Note, it is often difficult to identify who and where the offender is. In such cases, if the offender cannot be identified, the victim cannot claim damages against them. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the offender, who is the poster, and pursue their responsibility. This is called a sender information disclosure request.

https://monolith.law/reputation/provider-liability-limitation-law[ja]

What is a Provider?

A sender information disclosure request is a request made to a provider for the disclosure of sender information based on the Japanese Provider Liability Limitation Act. There are two types of providers.

Two Types of Providers

Firstly, those who use the internet must contract with a line operator that provides internet lines, and then contract with a transit provider (Internet Service Provider). A transit provider is a business that connects to the internet, and in order to connect a line to the internet, a contract with a transit provider is necessary.

Not only for fixed-line services, but also for mobile phones and smartphones, the fees are combined as an option, so it’s not very conscious, but you cannot connect to the internet unless you contract with the corresponding transit provider.

On the other hand, the term Content Service Provider refers to the operation of platforms like Note Corporation. In conclusion, there are two types of providers: Content Service Providers and Transit Providers.

Procedure 1 for Identifying the Poster: Request for Disclosure of IP Address and Timestamp

Firstly, to identify the poster on note, a request for disclosure of sender information is made to note Inc.

IP Address and Timestamp

Not only note Inc., but also operators of anonymous bulletin boards and the like do not know the names and addresses of the posters. Therefore, even if you request them to disclose the name and address of the poster, they will simply say, “We don’t know, so we can’t disclose it.”

However, there is information that the operators definitely know. That is the poster’s “IP address and timestamp”.

An “IP address” is the address information on the Internet. Machines connected to the Internet, such as home PCs and smartphones, have unique address information called IP addresses. When they connect to a site or make a post, the poster’s IP address and the time of access, the “timestamp”, are recorded by the content service provider. Therefore, the request for disclosure of sender information begins by asking the content service provider to disclose the IP address and timestamp of the person who made the post.

You will need to submit a “Request for Disclosure of Sender Information” to note Inc., but the chances of the IP address and timestamp being disclosed are not very high. This is because note Inc., like all content service providers, has a duty to protect the secrets of the posters, and in most cases, they will respond, “We cannot disclose it without a court order.”

Therefore, in parallel with sending the “Request for Disclosure of Sender Information”, it is necessary to initiate a “provisional disposition” to request note Inc. to disclose the poster’s IP address and timestamp.

The “Application for Provisional Disposition Order for Disclosure of Sender Information” is a procedure to obtain a decision from the court to order note Inc. to comply with the disclosure if the IP address and timestamp are not disclosed even after sending the “Request for Disclosure of Sender Information” to note Inc.

In this case, instead of a formal lawsuit, a quick procedure called a provisional disposition is taken. Although lawsuits take time, if all goes well, a provisional disposition will be issued by the court in about a month, and then the operator will promptly disclose the IP address and timestamp.

Conditions for Requesting Disclosure of Sender Information

In order to identify the poster, we request the disclosure of the sender’s information based on the Japanese Provider Liability Limitation Act. However, there are several prerequisites for making a request for disclosure of sender information.

Infringement of Rights

Just like in the case of requesting the removal of a post, in order to request the disclosure of the sender’s information, it must be clear that your rights have been infringed upon by the post. Requests for information disclosure out of mere curiosity, such as wanting to know who would make such a post, are not recognized.

For example, in the case of defamation, it is assumed that the victim’s social reputation has been damaged. However, determining whether defamation has occurred or whether privacy has been violated can often be difficult. Therefore, it is advisable to seek the judgment of an experienced attorney.

Justifiable Reason

Requests for disclosure of sender information are only recognized when the requester has a justifiable reason to obtain the sender’s information.

In other words, it is recognized as having a “justifiable reason” only when there is a necessity such as:

• It is necessary for a removal request to the sender
• It is necessary for the exercise of civil rights to claim damages
• It is necessary for requests for reputation restoration, such as apology advertisements
• It is necessary for the exercise of the right to request cessation
• It is necessary to identify the person when taking legal measures such as criminal accusations

If the purpose is unclear or if it is for an unjust purpose such as private sanctions, it will not be recognized.

https://monolith.law/reputation/disclosure-of-the-senders-information[ja]

Procedure 2 for Identifying the Poster: Prohibition of Log Deletion

Once the poster’s IP address is disclosed in Procedure 1, it is possible to identify the transit provider used by the sender through the URL or by using a provider identification service such as “WHOIS”.

Next, you will request log information from the identified transit provider, such as the “address and name of the subscriber who used the IP address at a certain date and time”. However, the amount of this log information is enormous. If it’s a mobile carrier, it’s for tens of millions of people, and even if it’s a transit provider, it’s for several million people. Therefore, transit providers delete logs after a certain period of time, about three months for mobile carriers and at most about a year for fixed-line providers. Therefore, if too much time is spent between the post and the filing of a lawsuit, there is a high possibility that the logs will be deleted during that time.

On the other hand, when dealing with transit providers, it is necessary to request the disclosure of significant personal information such as the sender’s name and address, which requires a regular civil lawsuit rather than a provisional disposition. However, it usually takes several months for a civil lawsuit to be concluded. Therefore, if the provider deletes the logs they are storing during this time, and the evidence is lost, a separate provisional disposition procedure to prohibit the deletion of logs is necessary.

However, in most cases, if you notify the transit provider that “we are requesting the disclosure of the address and name through the court, so please keep the logs for a while”, they will keep the logs, so in many cases, notification alone is sufficient.

https://monolith.law/reputation/whois[ja]

Procedure 3 for Identifying the Poster: Lawsuit for Disclosure of Sender Information

Once it is guaranteed that the access log is saved, you will need to file a lawsuit for the disclosure of sender information against the intermediary provider, seeking the disclosure of information about the sender such as ‘address, name, email address’, etc.

As a rule, intermediary providers do not comply with the disclosure of sender information unless the sender agrees, and the address and name are significant personal information. The court will only allow the disclosure of the address and name through a formal procedure of a lawsuit if it recognizes it as illegal. Therefore, a request for disclosure of sender information against the intermediary provider will not be a provisional disposition, but a main lawsuit. The main issue of the lawsuit is whether it is clear that the content of the target post infringes on the rights of the plaintiff (the person requesting disclosure).

Procedure 4 for Identifying the Poster: Claim for Damages

If the court determines that “rights have been infringed by the posted article” and “there is a legitimate reason,” the court will order the provider to disclose the name, address, email address, etc. of the subscriber who used the service at the time of posting the article.

Once the sender’s information is disclosed and the sender is identified, you can claim for damages. However, you also have the following options:

• Make them pledge not to repeat defamation in the future
• Claim the expenses incurred (investigation costs, attorney fees)
• File a criminal complaint
• Demand an apology advertisement

There are options other than claiming damages, and you can choose multiple options.

The last option, “demanding an apology advertisement,” is generally not recommended as it may potentially amplify the damage in cases of defamation. However, it could be an option if the damage has already been amplified, in cases involving celebrities or companies, or if the other party is a corporation, etc.

As for the options, the costs are generally considered as follows: for IP address disclosure, the retainer fee is about 200,000-300,000 yen, the contingency fee is about 150,000-200,000 yen, for deletion & IP address disclosure, the retainer fee is about 300,000 yen, the contingency fee is about 300,000 yen, for name and address disclosure, the retainer fee is about 300,000 yen, the contingency fee is about 200,000 yen.

For more information on deletion requests, please refer to this article.

https://monolith.law/reputation/note-comment-delete[ja]

Summary

There are many cases where the problem is not resolved simply by deleting articles that defame or slander. By identifying the poster and holding them accountable, it is possible to prevent the recurrence of the incident.

If you find a malicious article, consult with an experienced attorney as soon as possible to prevent the damage from spreading.